Method of constant stimuli: Recalculations show that response-frequency equalization cannot fit the data

The bias found in the method of constant stimuli has been attributed either to an adaptation-level effect or to a response bias. Restle and Levison presented data purported to show that the result could not be explained by response frequency equalization, the best available response-bias theory. Erlebacher and Sekuler elaborated their theory and calculated a version of the model that would fit the main experimental result, but chose an erroneously large value for the standard deviation of their model. Their model does not produce an acceptable fit to the data, and therefore does not successfully compete with the adaptation-level model.